From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751976AbeC3MRb (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:31 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:56191 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751118AbeC3MR3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:17:29 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/G+q8sBAevqlCENH5NmDVIMTEDIQVqCmh+XW4j4i57Y6dH/Zhw/6i/ZZW4ez/rymvF58K/Ow== Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:17:25 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Dave Hansen Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Lutomirski , Kees Cook , Hugh Dickins , =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Gro=DF?= , the arch/x86 maintainers , namit@vmware.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Use global pages with PTI Message-ID: <20180330121725.zcklh36ulg7crydw@gmail.com> References: <20180323174447.55F35636@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20180327200719.lvdomez6hszpmo4s@gmail.com> <0d6ea030-ec3b-d649-bad7-89ff54094e25@linux.intel.com> <20180330120920.btobga44wqytlkoe@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180330120920.btobga44wqytlkoe@gmail.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > No Global pages (baseline): 186.951 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.35% ) > > 28 Global pages (this set): 185.756 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.09% ) > > -1.195 seconds (-0.64%) > > > > Lower is better here, obviously. > > > > I also re-checked everything using will-it-scale's llseek1 test[2] which > > is basically a microbenchmark of a halfway reasonable syscall. Higher > > here is better. > > > > No Global pages (baseline): 15783951 lseeks/sec > > 28 Global pages (this set): 16054688 lseeks/sec > > +270737 lseeks/sec (+1.71%) > > > > So, both the kernel compile and the microbenchmark got measurably faster. > > Ok, cool, this is much better! > > Mind re-sending the patch-set against latest -tip so it can be merged? > > At this point !PCID Intel hardware is not a primary concern, if something bad > happens on them with global pages we can quirk global pages off on them in some > way, or so. BTW., the expectation on !PCID Intel hardware would be for global pages to help even more than the 0.6% and 1.7% you measured on PCID hardware: PCID already _reduces_ the cost of TLB flushes - so if there's not even PCID then global pages should help even more. In theory at least. Would still be nice to measure it. Thanks, Ingo